Thread by @CyrilRamaphosa

Finally, I turn to Mr Koko’s allegation that I improperly interfered to procure his dismissal from Eskom in January 2018.
 
As I detail in my statement to the Commission, Eskom was in a severe crisis at the time.

Its domestic and international lenders were threatening to call on their loans, in part because of concerns about Eskom’s leadership and its reaction to allegations of corruption.

Eskom’s predicament threatened its very existence as a going concern, the country’s sovereign rating and the country’s ability to access much needed lines of credit.

An urgent meeting was held at the President’s official residence on 19 January 2018, attended by President Zuma, Ministers Brown and Gigaba, and myself.

The meeting resolved that urgent action was necessary to avert a national disaster, restore Eskom’s credibility, and instil confidence in Eskom.

This would require changes to Eskom’s Board and its leadership. The Board would further be directed to remove all Eskom Executives facing allegations of corruption and other acts of impropriety, including Mr Koko.

Mr Koko contends that his removal was an instance of unlawful interference in Eskom’s affairs, executive overreach and state capture.
 
The suggestion that government cannot lawfully intervene in Eskom’s affairs — even to avert a crisis — is incorrect.

Government is Eskom’s sole shareholder, and Eskom’s Memorandum of Incorporation states that: “The Shareholder may direct the Company to take any action specified by the Shareholder if the Company is… is in financial difficulty or is being mismanaged…”

The remedial measures thus fell substantively within the shareholders powers as contemplated in Eskom’s Memorandum of Incorporation.
 
The mere fact that Mr Koko was removed does not mean that his removal was intended to achieve corrupt ends or to somehow capture Eskom.